Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Prasanth Andrews S/o Andres – Appellant
Versus
Ayyappan Pillai S/o Gopala Pillai – Respondent
OP (Crl.) No. 609 of 2025
Decided On : 09-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial officers must ensure fairness in case proceedings. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner raised issues on the dismissal of the application to present evidence. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. no notice to respondent needed; review petition available for grievance. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. haste by the magistrate in judgment pronouncement criticized. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. judgment deferred; proper orders must be communicated. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
1. It is true that the judiciary is facing docket explosions, and every judicial officer should strive to dispose of cases without adjourning cases at the instance of parties for frivolous reasons. But, while trying to dispose of the cases, the court should bear in mind that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. It emphasises the importance of transparency and perception in the administration of justice. Even if a case is dismissed or allowed, parties should leave the court premises with a feeling that they obtained a fair chance to contest their case. Then only the system will prevail. That is the success of the justice delivery system.
2. The petitioner is an accused in ST No.789 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (E&O)Ernakulam. It was a prosecution initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Ext.P1 is the complaint. The trial in the above case started on 04.02.2025, and the complainant was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P61 were marked on the side of the complainant. After the closure of evidence of the complainant and during the examination of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner explained that the subject cheques in question were originally handed over to one Shivasubramaniam. It is the case of the petitioner that the complainant, after obtaining the cheque from Shivasubramaniam, filled it and presented the cheque, which resulted in the initiation of the present prosecution. Shivasubramaniam was summoned and examined as DW1. During the said examination, it is submitted that printouts of the screenshots of WhatsApp chat between the petitioner and DW1 were shown to DW1. DW1 admitted the phone number on the said printout. The printouts of the screenshots of the WhatsApp chat between the petitioner and DW1 were not marked is the grievance of the petitioner. Hence, on 05.08.2025, when the case was posted for hearing, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 application to reopen the evidence for the purpose of marking the printouts of the screenshots of the WhatsApp chat. Ext.P2(a) is produced herein as the printouts of the screenshots of the WhatsApp chat.
3. According to the petitioner, on 05.08.2025, the learned Magistrate, without considering Ext.P2, proceeded with the hearing and the case was posted to 07.08.2025 for further hearing. On 07.08.2025, the learned Magistrate posted the case to 12.08.2025 for judgment without passing any orders in Ext.P2. Hence, the petitioner filed O.P.(Crl.) No.539 of 2025 before this Court, which resulted in the Ext.P3 judgment. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that, as directed by this court, the Ext.P2 application was considered by the learned Magistrate on 08.09.2025 and dismissed that application at 3.15 p.m. on that day, and the case was posted to 09.09.2025 for judgment. The petitioner submitted that he filed an application for a certified copy as evidenced by Ext.P4, on 08.09.2025 itself. But without issuing a certified copy, the learned Magistrate is going to deliver the judgment today, is the grievance. This original petition was considered by this Court at 10:25 a.m. on 09.09.2025.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The way in which this original petition is going to be disposed of, I am of the opinion that no notice is necessary to the respondent. If the respondent is aggrieved by any of the directions issued in this judgment, the respondent is free to file a review petition.
6. This Court, as per the
The court highlighted the principle of ensuring fairness and transparency in the judicial process, directing that all parties must be properly informed of verdicts and orders.
Judicial fairness requires that parties be served with copies of orders to challenge them; proceeding without service undermines due process.
Opportunity for further cross examination can be granted on the condition of compensating the respondent for inconvenience suffered due to adjournments.
The decision emphasized the importance of practical case management in courts while balancing judicial efficiency and the rights of involved parties.
A litigant ought not to suffer because of the mistake of the Counsel, and a reasonable explanation for absence can warrant an opportunity for consideration of the complaint on merits.
The court emphasizes expeditious resolution of pending suits, adhering to previous directives for timely judicial proceedings.
The court established that the amendment to Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C. requires an inquiry only when the accused resides outside the jurisdiction, but if sufficient grounds are evident from the re....
The requirement of notice before condonation of delay in filing a report is essential to ensure fair procedure as mandated by the principles of natural justice.
Compliance under Sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when the accused is residing beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, is mandatory.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
